International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=64)
-   -   9/11: How they Faked the Videos (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=341275)

Regnad Kcin 22nd January 2020 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962786)
The PTB always want to accomplish multiple goals with their staged events.

There's no reason to think that justifying war is the only reason for 9/11. It appears it was also a land clearing project and an insurance scam. Plus they want to keep people in a continuous state of anxiety to make them more pliable and accepting of whatever is on the PTB's agenda.

”PTB”

LOL

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12962918)
I know the wings did not fold back. The wings are what carries the plane though air, they hit straight on, and left marks on the WTC, and Pentagon, and the field in PA. Not sure why you make up folding wings as an argument for your fantasy version of 9/11 born in ignorance of physics, math, engineering, steel, and much more.

The videos are real, and backed with Radar, and you can't do much more than lie about them. You spread lies and offer no explanation of how they were faked and and why they match Radar data in time and space.

Yes, we know we have to prove what is real, and you can lie and not present evidence.


You can't do physics so you have no clue at some speed with some mass the WTC shell is broken.

You admit you don't know, but you make up fantasy lies based on what you don't know. Fantasy lies, based on lies.


Why are you posting if you offer no evidence, and have no clue how in your fantasy the Radar is fake? You can't say the Radar is fake if you have no clue. I mean you can say it, but it becomes a lie because you can't prove it. Why do you lie about things you don't understand and have no intention of learning about them?

anti education, and anti-evidence?

You are stuck posting lies in forum section where your lies are debunked, and in this case since you offer no clues how the videos were faked, you are self debunking like most of 9/11 truth who spread ridiculous lies and fantasy.

Lying is saying something you know to be false. I'm not doing that.You have to falsely accuse people of lying to bolster your own weak arguments and lack of proof for your claims.

You claim the videos are real but offer no evidence. Likewise the radar.

I mention about the folding wings only to call out eye witness and mainstream 'reporrter/journalist' Mike Walter as a liar. He's making a claim he knows is false. He's someone we're supposed to trust to tell us the truth.

ETA: If you want to know HOW the videos can be faked, watch "9/1 Ghost Plane". The proof that they were faked is self evident by the lack of any realistic crash physics.

Regnad Kcin 22nd January 2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962858)
Can you present any proof that the impact videos are real? All you have is your incredulity that they could be fake.

(Here we go again...)

Shifting the burden of proof.

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12962934)
”PTB”

LOL

What term do you prefer to refer to those who are in control of big business and big government?

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin (Post 12962941)
(Here we go again...)

Shifting the burden of proof.

Damn right! Why shouldn't the first burden of proof be on those making the original claims..ie. That Bin Laden was responsible? Where's that proof?

beachnut 22nd January 2020 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962956)
Damn right! Why shouldn't the first burden of proof be on those making the original claims..ie. That Bin Laden was responsible? Where's that proof?

UBL's buddies did it, and you can't prove otherwise, and never will try.

The Radar is proved, the Video are proved.

Thus they are evidence you fail to refute, and admit you don't have clue how to fake video or Radar.

UBL backed the 19 murderers you make up lies which you want to blame on others you can't name and have no evidence to make the claim.

You have fantasy, and can't do physics

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12962927)
Read the follow ups. KSM planned the attacks actually much more than the four planes that were hijacked, OBL(UBL) nixed those plans ans focused on a more manageable four plane attack, and funded the operation with those individuals that KSM selected.

Where's the proof any of that is true? Did you get that info from Mike Walter?
Remember everyone believed Nayirah's tearful account of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and onto the floor.

Leftus 22nd January 2020 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962786)
The PTB always want to accomplish multiple goals with their staged events.

There's no reason to think that justifying war is the only reason for 9/11. It appears it was also a land clearing project and an insurance scam. Plus they want to keep people in a continuous state of anxiety to make them more pliable and accepting of whatever is on the PTB's agenda.

You know this how? Are you a member of the PTB cabal?

beachnut 22nd January 2020 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962980)
Where's the proof any of that is true? Did you get that info from Mike Walter?
Remember everyone believed Nayirah's tearful account of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and onto the floor.

That is not logical to bring up lies to support your fantasy, and fail to refute what KSM admitted.

Go ahead, make my day, tell where the 19 murderers in your fantasy were supported by.

If you can't refute a claim, you don't need to bring up stuff about Kuwait: are you upset Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait? Was Saddam your friend?

Since you have no clue how 9/11 was executed, you bring up Kuwait? lol, you can't do physics, you can't refute the videos, you can't refute Radar, so you bring up Kuwait?

Failed logic. No matter how many lies by others you bring up, the videos remain real. You offer no evidence, so you bring up other people lies?> why

Robin 22nd January 2020 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962811)
I don't have to be a physicist to know a plane can't penetrate steel box columns, and3/4 inch spandrels backed by 60 ft of concrete and steel flooring at the same velocity as going through air.

ETA: AnD I don't need to know how they Faked the radar. As fo witnesses, theier accounts wwere highly inconsistent. or bald faced lies likw Walter and Praimnath.

So do you think that the physicists and engineers, who say that a 120 ton aircraft hitting a building at 800 kph can do just that, are lying? Or that they have their maths wrong?

bknight 22nd January 2020 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962980)
Where's the proof any of that is true? Did you get that info from Mike Walter?
Remember everyone believed Nayirah's tearful account of Iraqi soldiers throwing Kuwaiti babies out of incubators and onto the floor.

Follow the intel. No I never believed a tearful account of babies being thrown out of incubators so I estimate that "everyone" is incorrect.
Again I urge you to investigate follow ups , but I doubt that will occur. All you have to offer is "do you have any proofs?" Do you have any proofs that these accounts did not happen? Or are you just trolling?

Captain_Swoop 22nd January 2020 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962956)
Damn right! Why shouldn't the first burden of proof be on those making the original claims..ie. That Bin Laden was responsible? Where's that proof?

How about starting with the thousands of eye witnesses?

Robin 22nd January 2020 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bknight (Post 12963000)
Follow the intel. No I never believed a tearful account of babies being thrown out of incubators so I estimate that "everyone" is incorrect.
Again I urge you to investigate follow ups , but I doubt that will occur. All you have to offer is "do you have any proofs?" Do you have any proofs that these accounts did not happen? Or are you just trolling?

I never believed tearful accounts of babies being thrown out of incubators either, nor did anyone I know, so I am not sure where this "everyone" comes from.

Leftus 22nd January 2020 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962948)
What term do you prefer to refer to those who are in control of big business and big government?

Their existence doesn't prove the cabal exists.

Robin 22nd January 2020 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962938)
ETA: If you want to know HOW the videos can be faked, watch "9/1 Ghost Plane". The proof that they were faked is self evident by the lack of any realistic crash physics.

I have frame-by-framed through two of these videos so far and can see no lack of realistic crash physics. The plane pretty much does what you would expect a plane to do when colliding with a skyscraper at high speed.

The time from first impact to the whole plane having impacted is, maybe, one fifth, or one sixth of a second, which doesn't allow any time for forces to travel back through the rest of the plane to cause any buckling.

Any buckling, shredding or shattering would happen right next to the wall of the skyscraper.

The rest of the plane would hold its shape.

I have already pointed out exactly the same thing happening for the the fragile wing of a cruise missile as it hits concrete. It appears to "ghost into" the concrete although in reality it is shattering.

GlennB 22nd January 2020 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12963064)
I have frame-by-framed through two of these videos so far and can see no lack of realistic crash physics. The plane pretty much does what you would expect a plane to do when colliding with a skyscraper at high speed.

The time from first impact to the whole plane having impacted is, maybe, one fifth, or one sixth of a second, which doesn't allow any time for forces to travel back through the rest of the plane to cause any buckling.

Any buckling, shredding or shattering would happen right next to the wall of the skyscraper.

The rest of the plane would hold its shape.

Critical part highlighted.

Truthers are fooled by slo-mo video and animations into thinking that the plane 'melted' into the building. Those slo-mo's are accurate, but slow. No time for debris to start flying around outside, because it too is slow to erupt.

curious cat 22nd January 2020 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12962918)
I know the wings did not fold back. The wings are what carries the plane though air, they hit straight on, and left marks on the WTC, and Pentagon, and the field in PA.......................

I believe the whole idea of "folding wings" came up when some people were seeking explanation of the lateral bending of columns and cladding at the point of impact. I can see some logic in it. The fuselage (I believe) had the lowest mass/are ratio and was penetrating faster than the wings where this ratio was higher. Providing the wing were still attached at the point of impact, some degree of folding was inevitable. How much and if of any significance I don't dare to estimate.
Because of the complexity of the event that can be only characterised as "chaotic", I don't think we can entirely dismiss this possibility. At the same token, other plausible explanations (based on aircraft impact) exist. I don't think we will ever know for sure and for that reason I am not trying to get into this discussion too deep ;-).

Jack by the hedge 22nd January 2020 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962757)
The fake 'impact videos are all the evidence I need to know the event was not as we' were told...

Well, there we are then, exactly as I said: there must have been massive numbers of direct eye witnesses to the second WTC impact; it could easily have been many tens of thousands. Just as soon as some of those people discover the internet, they'll be gagging to tell us all what actually happened.

Can't wait.

I mean we have previously had eyewitnesses post on this very forum (and its predecessor) but sadly they must all have been got at by The Man, either threatened or brainwashed or something like that because they all say they saw an airliner.

Deadie 22nd January 2020 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962956)
Why shouldn't the first burden of proof be on those making the original claims

Well, it is.

There is a convergence of evidence that exists (and is easily and publicly available to peruse) on this event that allows us to say that is it reasonable to assume that hijacked 767s were intentionally flown into those buildings.

If after seeing this evidence you chose to disagree or otherwise find fault with any of it, then the burden of proof now shifts to you to explain in detail why you believe that to be so.

If your assessment is that airplanes were not flown into the buildings, then you better be prepared to do the math to show everyone wrong.

You have an objects mass and its velocity. You can now calculate its kinetic energy and thus what could potentially happen structurally given a partially inelastic collision.

yankee451 22nd January 2020 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge (Post 12963128)
Well, there we are then, exactly as I said: there must have been massive numbers of direct eye witnesses to the second WTC impact; it could easily have been many tens of thousands. Just as soon as some of those people discover the internet, they'll be gagging to tell us all what actually happened.

Can't wait.

I mean we have previously had eyewitnesses post on this very forum (and its predecessor) but sadly they must all have been got at by The Man, either threatened or brainwashed or something like that because they all say they saw an airliner.

I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting several alleged witnesses. One guy even claimed to have been a fireman who was evacuating people from Building 7, and was standing right under the tower when 175 crashed. He finally admitted he was making it up. Every "witness" I've talked to (I think seven, so far) was just repeating what they saw on television.

Axxman300 22nd January 2020 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12963181)
I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting several alleged witnesses. One guy even claimed to have been a fireman who was evacuating people from Building 7, and was standing right under the tower when 175 crashed. He finally admitted he was making it up. Every "witness" I've talked to (I think seven, so far) was just repeating what they saw on television.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

beachnut 22nd January 2020 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12963181)
I've had the dubious pleasure of meeting several alleged witnesses. One guy even claimed to have been a fireman who was evacuating people from Building 7, and was standing right under the tower when 175 crashed. He finally admitted he was making it up. Every "witness" I've talked to (I think seven, so far) was just repeating what they saw on television.

I got the Radar data, which proves 11 and 175 were the aircraft captured on video.

You can't explain how the video was faked, all you can do is say it is fake.
The same for Radar, you have no clue how you can fake Radar which confirms the video, which confirms the Radar.

Looks like you spread fantasy and can't publish this claptrap in a newspaper.

curious cat 22nd January 2020 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axxman300 (Post 12963183)
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.

:):):):):):):):):)

yankee451 22nd January 2020 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962938)
Lying is saying something you know to be false. I'm not doing that.You have to falsely accuse people of lying to bolster your own weak arguments and lack of proof for your claims.

You claim the videos are real but offer no evidence. Likewise the radar.

I mention about the folding wings only to call out eye witness and mainstream 'reporrter/journalist' Mike Walter as a liar. He's making a claim he knows is false. He's someone we're supposed to trust to tell us the truth.

ETA: If you want to know HOW the videos can be faked, watch "9/1 Ghost Plane". The proof that they were faked is self evident by the lack of any realistic crash physics.

In that video, Ace Baker showed how a CGI plane was probably used for the Hezarkhani footage.

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12962995)
That is not logical to bring up lies to support your fantasy, and fail to refute what KSM admitted.

Go ahead, make my day, tell where the 19 murderers in your fantasy were supported by.

If you can't refute a claim, you don't need to bring up stuff about Kuwait: are you upset Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait? Was Saddam your friend?

Since you have no clue how 9/11 was executed, you bring up Kuwait? lol, you can't do physics, you can't refute the videos, you can't refute Radar, so you bring up Kuwait?

Failed logic. No matter how many lies by others you bring up, the videos remain real. You offer no evidence, so you bring up other people lies?> why

i bring up Kuwait to show that the media promulgating big lies is not exclusive to 9/11. You' skeptics' believe without question what you're told by 'the medis and 'experts'. I don't.
Still no one has provided a shred of proof that the impact videos are real. They are fake on their face.

TJM 22nd January 2020 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12963254)
Still no one has provided a shred of proof that the impact videos are real. They are fake on their face.

You're a monkey which has been taught to type.

Prove you're not.

beachnut 22nd January 2020 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yankee451 (Post 12963217)
In that video, Ace Baker showed how a CGI plane was probably used for the Hezarkhani footage.

Nope, that was debunked - and you failed to reference the fantasy work to be reviews. Where is the video where Ace Baker fails like you do, to expose his lack of skill in video interpretation.

Ace Baker is/was mentally ill. How do you fake the video of all the different sources, at different place, and they all have the proper perspective for the flight path as seen on Radar and by witnesses.

Who faked the Radar, and why have those people failed to come forward?

You offer zero details on how all the different independant videos were faked and have not explained how Radar was faked that controllers saw in real time on 9/11, live!

You understand Radar is saved and can be investigated later for accidents or incidents. Radar makes you fake video claims a Big Lie which you keep telling. Telling a big lie over and over does not make anyone but the most gullible believe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSib5m4yfYI
how many of these videos did THEY have to fake? Who is THEY? Is it like THEM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4URRp39XOo

So, how many videos were faked, do you have a number? Or is your effort here as shallow as making up the missile fantasy, no effort at all.

Dumb All Over 22nd January 2020 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM8125 (Post 12963265)
You're a monkey which has been taught to type.

Prove you're not.

I'm self-taught.

Shalamar 22nd January 2020 06:40 PM

How many people are supposedly in on the conspiracy?

Tens?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Hundred Thousands?

Robin 22nd January 2020 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy;12963254i
Still no one has provided a shred of proof that the impact videos are real. They are fake on their face.

Still no one has provided a shred of evidence, never mind proof, that the impact videos are fake.

I still don't have any idea why anyone thinks they are, other than vague intuitions that a jet hitting a building would do something different.

As far as I can see that is just exactly what would happen if a jet hit a building.

Robin 22nd January 2020 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalamar (Post 12963304)
How many people are supposedly in on the conspiracy?

Tens?
Hundreds?
Thousands?
Hundred Thousands?

It would have to be hundreds at the very least and all of them maintaining their stories or keeping quiet nearly twenty years later.

Shalamar 22nd January 2020 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin (Post 12963306)
It would have to be hundreds at the very least and all of them maintaining their stories or keeping quiet nearly twenty years later.

Which is honestly, impossible.

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12963292)
Nope, that was debunked - and you failed to reference the fantasy work to be reviews. Where is the video where Ace Baker fails like you do, to expose his lack of skill in video interpretation.

Ace Baker is/was mentally ill. How do you fake the video of all the different sources, at different place, and they all have the proper perspective for the flight path as seen on Radar and by witnesses.

Who faked the Radar, and why have those people failed to come forward?

You offer zero details on how all the different independant videos were faked and have not explained how Radar was faked that controllers saw in real time on 9/11, live!

You understand Radar is saved and can be investigated later for accidents or incidents. Radar makes you fake video claims a Big Lie which you keep telling. Telling a big lie over and over does not make anyone but the most gullible believe it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSib5m4yfYI
how many of these videos did THEY have to fake? Who is THEY? Is it like THEM?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4URRp39XOo

So, how many videos were faked, do you have a number? Or is your effort here as shallow as making up the missile fantasy, no effort at all.

As far as I know, there are approximately 20 videos of the 2nd 'impact'. It doesn't even appear to be the same plane in all those videos.

With the 10s of thousands witnesses constantly being referred toby you 'skeptics', we should have a lot more videos and images. NY is full of tourists with cameras, media people with cameras, etc. After the first 'impact', thousands of cameras would be pointed at the towers. The fact that we don't have a ton more images of the 2nd 'impact' is a tell in itself that the story is bogus.

ETA: THeere were training exercises going on at the time involving fake radar blips for the purposes of the exercise.

Elagabalus 22nd January 2020 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12962720)
The lies of the PTB have been and continue to be exposed. Many of their lies don't require any specialized knowledge to see through. That's why the number of 'truthers' keeps growing. It's not rocket science.

No, no, no, Itchy Boy! Don't you see?! Don't you get it? This thing is bigger than that!! You think you can stop the Rothchilds? The Bilderbergs? They're at Davos right now as I type. We're the ones trying to protect you!! Our Alien Lizard Man liaison Schralk is getting impatient. He keeps asking about this Itchy Boy and why is he asking so many questions. We can't keep covering for you very much longer!

beachnut 22nd January 2020 06:59 PM

Fake video claim a lie, bogus talk from those who can't do video analysis
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12963315)
As far as I know, there are approximately 20 videos of the 2nd 'impact'. It doesn't even appear to be the same plane in all those videos.

With the 10s of thousands witnesses constantly being referred toby you 'skeptics', we should have a lot more videos and images. NY is full of tourists with cameras, media people with cameras, etc. After the first 'impact', thousands of cameras would be pointed at the towers. The fact that we don't have a ton more images of the 2nd 'impact' is a tell in itself that the story is bogus.

That is super stupid to claim there are not more so everything else is fake. Where did you learn to make up stuff that darn stupid. That is a skill, making up lies that only trump can beat you at.

You claim the videos are fake, prove it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSib5m4yfYI

Show me your detailed report and investigation on how this video was faked. Show us how it was done and your detailed study of the original video.

Prove it, or you are spreading lies you plagiarized from others. Show me the work on how you proved this is fake.

Thus you are spreading a lie you can't show proof of this video and many more to be fake and never will.

Did you plagiarize the claim about fake videos, and repeat is without thinking?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncsHVYGaL4E

how was the 767 shape hole a 767 would make hitting the WTC made if not by a 767, which was tracked by Radar to the WTC?

You are making the claims, if you can't produce evidence and facts, then you are spreading a lie. Are you spreading lies on purpose, or just repeating lies you were gullible enough to blindly believe.

MattNelson 22nd January 2020 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12963254)
i bring up Kuwait to show that the media promulgating big lies is not exclusive to 9/11. You' skeptics' believe without question what you're told by 'the medis and 'experts'. I don't.
Still no one has provided a shred of proof that the impact videos are real. They are fake on their face.

63 have been counted. Ever seen the list?

Ace Baker said the NBC Chopper4 live shot could not have been faked live... so he didn't believe it was live. If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts... right?

"How they Faked the Videos" has not been a part of this discussion because it wasn't possible. It's amazing this theory ever got off the ground (circa 2007)... and all thanks to some musicians: Simon Shack, Ace Baker, and Gerard Holmgren. Let's not forget the gullible folks who listened to them. Guilty. But I learned. There was no way to fool New Yorkers (and New Jerseyites) standing outside. They would have called BS. Somebody would have been insistent there was no plane. Where were your "no plane" witnesses at the time of the 2nd hit? Standing behind the towers to the north, or otherwise blocked.

There's a flash video of Ace Baker's "Great American Psy-Opera" Ch. 6 "What Planes?" with my commentary and intermissions for omitted witnesses/evidence added, found on my no plane theory webpage here.

Again, here's my "Airplane Debris, WTC 9/11" PDF (49MB, 86 pages). Shirley you can explain the Flight 175 engine filling the street with smoke and dust after hitting a building and knocking down street signs after dropping components along its trajectory. ;)

bruto 22nd January 2020 07:08 PM

What always amuses me about conspiracy theories such as this is the enormous extent of the elaborate hoax that is supposedly undertaken in order to do a relatively simple job in the most complicated and stupid way possible.

The bad guys here are presumed to have enormous resources, wealth, and the ability to accomplish amazingly well-disguised clandestine operations. They can fake videos and bribe millions of people and have access to a bunch of missiles that they can launch from secret sites without detection and guide where they want, etc. etc., all in order to forward an agenda of ruthless slavery, exploitation and war, but they cannot, it seems, come up with a couple of airplanes of their own. They are mean and pitiless and murderous, but they can't find a couple of jihadists of their own to fly them, or use some of their vast and deep technology to pilot them remotely. They can command a cast of millions in a scenario of colossal proportions, can wave false flags and fake suspects, but they can't figure out a simple way to blow up a building and blame someone for it.

If the stories of yankee451 and Itchy Boy are correct, the bad guys are either world class morons or delusionally insane.

beachnut 22nd January 2020 07:13 PM

Oh noes, another lie about Radar
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Itchy Boy (Post 12963315)
...

ETA: THeere were training exercises going on at the time involving fake radar blips for the purposes of the exercise.

Wrong again, who feeds you this dumbed down tripe?

There are no fake Radar blips on ATC Radar, they are not training consoles, thus you posted another lie as dumb as fake video. Why do you blindly repeat stupid 9/11 truth lies which were debunked before they were made. This is the best you can do, repeat lies which fooled you.

You can't debunk Radar, so you lie about Radar. Good one. Add Radar to your list of stuff you don't understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq8mwZflbMI

Go ahead tell us how this video was faked, yet it shows the plane exactly were the last plane was, and this was broadcast live, and recorded.

Show me the detail of how you found proof this video was faked.

Why can't you do anything to prove your point?

Because you are repeating lies blindly, and have no skill to analysis video.

The videos are real, you have to provide proof they are fake, otherwise you are spreading lies.

Show us the evidence, a detailed analysis of the video. Be sure your worked used the original video, not a youtube version. Do you understand why?

TJM 22nd January 2020 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb All Over (Post 12963293)
I'm self-taught.

Never in doubt.

*AJM tosses DAO a bag of trail mix and a squeaky toy.*

Itchy Boy 22nd January 2020 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachnut (Post 12963338)
Wrong again, who feeds you this dumbed down tripe?

There are no fake Radar blips on ATC Radar, they are not training consoles, thus you posted another lie as dumb as fake video. Why do you blindly repeat stupid 9/11 truth lies which were debunked before they were made. This is the best you can do, repeat lies which fooled you.

You can't debunk Radar, so you lie about Radar. Good one. Add Radar to your list of stuff you don't understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eq8mwZflbMI

Go ahead tell us how this video was faked, yet it shows the plane exactly were the last plane was, and this was broadcast live, and recorded.

Show me the detail of how you found proof this video was faked.

Why can't you do anything to prove your point?

Because you are repeating lies blindly, and have no skill to analysis video.

The videos are real, you have to provide proof they are fake, otherwise you are spreading lies.

Show us the evidence, a detailed analysis of the video. Be sure your worked used the original video, not a youtube version. Do you understand why?

jI'm not Claiming that video is fake. Only the videos that purport to show the actual impact, like the Hezarkhani video, that show no sign of a crash. While I could accept the engines and landing gear penetrating the wall, I can't accept the wingtips penetrating as depicted. And that's enought to convince me the video has to be fake.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.